Looks like it's time to give a refresher on The Demonstration of Markan Priority:
JW:Horae Synopticae
Ben Smith
JW:Textual excavation at its very finest. The phrase horae synopticae is Latin for synoptic hours. Hawkins named his book after all the time that he spent on the synoptic problem. And it shows. He compiles list after list of textual phenomena: Historical presents, distinctive vocabulary words, doublets, and many, many others.
Hawkins himself subscribed to the two-source hypothesis, but this book is a must-have for anyone interested in the relationship between the synoptics, regardless of position. It is, quite simply, without peer in its field.
Hawkins wrote HS (Horae Synopticae) in 1898 demonstrating Markan priority and it has not been significantly challenged since. In an irony that the author of GMark would approve of, Hawkins, a Reverend and believer of the historical assertions of orthodox Christianity, made a fundamental historical assertion of orthodox Christianity disappear, that the original Gospel narrative was written by "Matthew", the apostle.
The related, more recent confession of orthodox Christianity is that the original Gospel GMark, originally ended at 16:8, with no resurrection appearances. Subsequent editing of GMark and subsequent Gospels based on GMark added resurrection appearances to their versions.
The problem this creates for orthodox Christianity is that its traditional primary assertion is that Jesus was resurrected and its related traditional primary claim of historical support is that the Gospels provide historical witness to a resurrected Jesus. But without a resurrection appearance in the original narrative, there is no resurrection appearance in the source for subsequent Gospels which added resurrection appearances.
Again, the above is all confessed by Christian Bible scholarship. Christian assertion than, goes back to its roots of Paul/"Mark" (author). Belief in the resurrection is based on revelation/faith and not historical witness evidence.
The average Christian in the street has no idea of the above and thinks the issue is that the Gospels provide multiple first hand witness to a resurrected Jesus and non-Christians just choose not to believe what was written. Skeptics know better but I fear, based on discussions on this unholy Forum, that the average Skeptic here does not appreciate just how good the evidence is for Markan priority.
Since Hawkins wrote, the case for Markan priority has gotten stronger with new arguments developed, but HS is still the starting point. So let the Revelation of the argument for Markan priority begin:
In the first half of the book Hawkins compiles the raw data. In the second half he presents the argument for Markan priority:
Page 117 = Passages that would seem to be problems for orthodox Christianity are more prominent in GMark:
Since Hawkins wrote, Textual Criticism has determined that there are possibly/likely/probably many more difficult readings in GMark that Hawkins did not identify.A. Passages seeming (a) to limit the power of Jesus Christ, or (b) to be otherwise derogatory to, or unworthy of, Him.
[Numerous examples]
B. Passages seeming to disparage the attainments or character of the Apostles.
[Numerous examples]
C. Other passages which might cause offence or difficulty.
[Numerous examples]
Our own Peter Kirby, The Young Wolf, has a splendid related article here:
The Priority of Mark
for those who prefer the Truth in digest form (so to speak).
Enjoy!
Hawkins has 7 main categories of evidence favoring Markan priority, none of which have been seriously challenged since.
By the way, Schillingklutz. Weren't you the guy at the front of Caesar's Palace Sports Book repeating in the preseason that the Gophers will never cover the large spreads because they are a running team?
Joseph
ErrancyWiki